Posted in Sosial

Hindraf Q & A

Soalan 1: Menang 2-3 hari di jalanan cuma mengundang solusi melepas batuk di tangga sahaja. Saudara mahu orang Melayu [misalnya saya seorang individu Melayu yang tak ada jawatan dalam parti politik mana sekali pun] melihat Hindraf ini sebagai apa?

Ganesan: Thank you for this interesting question.

I can understand that from the common Malay point of view, Hindraf’s significance maybe only the images of the fight they led on Nov 25th against Umno. Once the media lights moved on so did the memories of the common Malay person. However in the case of the Indians Nov 25th 2007 is viewed as a major historic day because of the huge psychological significance of unity and of defiance .

Only the victims in any battle will understand loss. The Indian poor lost everything , their dignity included, over the many years of living lives so close to slavery, after being brought here by the whites. When Merdeka was won, the “Indian near slaves” only saw a change in their masters and a worsening of their living conditions as the big plantations began to break up. The new Masters and new government development priorities saw their conditions deteriorate. They were pushed out of the estates in large numbers. In a recent estimate, about 800,000 Indian plantation workers were forcibly pushed out of their rural communities into the urban areas – poorly equipped for life in a completely alien environment.

Most Malays do not make the difference between the urban educated Indians who form about 25% of the Indians in the country with the poor Indians whom we speak of and whom Hindraf represents. Often you hear statistics about the number of Indian Doctors and Lawyers and of Tony Fernandez and Anandakrishnan. This confuses the problems of the Indian poor and totally wipes out the significance and antecedents of their poverty. The result of this has been a steady deterioration of the problems of the Indian poor. This is one of the major reasons for the significant increase in crime amongst the Indian youth.

The Malay people need to view Hindraf as a Human Rights organization that came about because of the poverty of the Indians from the estates. They do not threaten the well being of any other community. Of course our enemies will present us as the ones demanding an end to Malay special privileges. But when the Malays themselves are now demanding an end to Malay special privileges among the rich and powerful Malays, Hindraf is just the forerunner of brining these more democratic and just values into the country. In an environment of justice, fairness, dignity and equality, everyone will prosper. Hindraf is a patriotic organization that seeks to contribute to building a nation on a solid foundation of social justice.

Question 2: How can Hindraf be an Indian right-wing pressure group demanding for special ‘rights’ for Indians while maintaining a Malaysian identity, support meritocracy and oppose the NEP-led affirmative actions? Isn’t that hypocritical?  

Ganesan: Thank you for the question.

“How can Hindraf be an Indian right-wing pressure group”… We are an Indian rights group. We seek the re-institution of the rights guaranteed under international norms as well as guaranteed in the Malaysian Federal Constitution. That is different than saying we are a right wing group. Right wing usually denotes terror elements of moneyed and vested interests in society. This we clearly are not. We represent the poor and  defenceless elements in our society. We have no sympathy for the moneyed groups whatsoever – whether Indians or otherwise.

Let me state here for your knowledge the stated objectives of Hindraf:

1) To bring the Indian poor and marginalized into the mainstream of National Development

2) To eliminate state-sponsored racist and religious supremacist policies.

We do not seek any special rights, just the rights that have been guaranteed us and the practice of equal rights for all citizen in the country. We do not seek special privileges or rights. This is clearly a misunderstanding.

Our driving thoughts are these that compel us to both seek targeted solutions for the Indian poor (which makes us look like we are asking for special rights) and to do it without any sense of conflict in multiracial Malaysia:

1) Many of the problems of the Indian poor are unique – the alarming increase in the involvement in underworld activities of Indian youth is one, large numbers of stateless Indians is another, non-commensurate representation in low skill jobs, breakdown of the social system, destruction of places of worship — whatever the reasons given and highest suicide rate among the ethnic groups.

The collapse of the primary education system for the Indian children is another glaring and unique problem confronting the Indian poor. These problems cannot be cured by general policies or by what we call trickle down approaches, they need a targeted approach. They need specific attention, allocation of funds and resources and appropriate approaches. These are specific problems that require specific solutions. Unless applied in this way the problems will not go away.

All of this is consistent with the national objective of building a strong and resilient Malaysia.

2) RM1,115 billion have been spent in the last 10 Malaysian Development Plans.  There has not been any significant allocation for the development of the Indian poor over the 48 years of the 10 plans. So, we are saying it is time for some funds to be allocated on a targeted basis for the upliftment of the Indian poor. If there are other similar communities, with similar problems, then they need to be addressed in similar ways. We are not asking for exclusive treatment (though our enemies will want to make it look like were doing just that). We are asking for comprehensive and permanent solutions to these problems.

We do not believe we are being hypocritical in any way in any of our approaches. We are a young organization, we are a small, resource lean organization, we do social and poltical work in the area where we started and where there is a great need. Nobody else is taking up the case for the Indian poor – they say they care, but the truth of the matter is that all they are interested in is the votes of these poor people. We do what we do, not by taking away from others, but by restoring justice and fairness where it is rightfully due.

However we let you decide if any of that is hypocritical.

Soalan 3: Berapa ramaikah di kalangan [pemimpin] tertinggi Hindraf yang beragama Kristian? Adakah India Muslim boleh menjadi ahli Hindraf? Mengapakah tidak menyertai party politik yang sedia, yang juga menjaga kepentingan kaum masing-masing?

Ganesan: At the Central Leadership there are no Christian members. This not by design. This is how it has worked itself out. Right from the very beginning when Hindraf was formed, the main objective was to prevent the demolition of Hindu Temples. Indian Christians were not affected by what was then happening and so we have it today that there are no Christian members at the Central Leadership level. We however do have several who are Christians at the next levels of leadership.

We do not define membership by religion. If you subscribe to the objectives of Hindraf you are eligible to be a member. The objectives of Hindraf are:

1) To bring the Indian poor and marginalized into the mainstream of National Development

2) To eliminate state sponsored-racist and religious supremacist policies.

If you subscribe to these objectives you can be a member.

None of the existing political parties truly represent the interests and rights of the Indian poor. All they seem to be interested in is their votes. They manipulate the poor Indians, get their votes and then forget about improving their livelihoods. MIC represents the rich Indians. The other Indian parties on Barisan Nasional side only serve Barisan to get them the Indian votes. They do not serve the interest of the Indian poor. On the Pakatan side there is no effective Indian poor representation – yes there are Indian representatives, but they are representatives who happen to be Indian but who do not serve the interest of the Indian poor.

In summary it would be right to say that there is no political party that serves the interest of the Indian poor in the country.

Soalan 4: Apa masalah besar jika Hindraf mengambil pendekatan lembut dan moderate? Kenapa perlu sentiasa bersifat konfrontasi dan menuntut sesuatu dengan pendekatan bombastik?

Ganesan: This question requires an understanding of how things really work in the world of politics.

We operate in a democratic system where a simple majority is all that is required for you to get the power of decision and control on all Government policy matters.

In this environment, you can see how the minority communities can be disadvantaged. If the minority community is disadvantaged in numbers but is economically strong, then it can buy a share of the power of decision. There are many ways by which this works. To give a simple example — providing a large financial contribution to a candidate who is standing in the elections and make him win as a result. Even though he/she may not belong to the minority community but he/she is now obliged to promote the interest of that community. This is common knowledge.

Now imagine what happens if you are a very small minority and you are not economically strong. Your destiny is entirely at the hands of those who hold a simple majority and you have no choice on this anymore. This is exactly the case with the Indian poor. You ask, you request, you do this behind closed doors, you do this in various ways, moderate methods, you do this in the Cabinet, you do this in the party meetings, but no one really hears. You cannot do anything. Years pass. The end result is a community in distress.

Couple this on the other hand with the policies designed by the community with a simple majority – all policies get slanted to their advantage, all benefits from the Government flows towards them. Opportunities to the minority communities are blocked, are denied, or are removed. You get a very unbalanced situation.

Then one day when the unbalance gets to be so great you suddenly get an explosion of anger against the unfairness and the injustice in the system. That is what you see in recent years. What you have not seen over the previous years past is all the patience and all the behind-the-door discussion and all the moderate and soft approaches that have been used to little benefit. When all that has not produced even small results, the outcome unfortunately is this – the problem spills over on to the streets.

As far as making extreme demands, I must say that extreme or not also depends on one’s point of view. Take this example — when you have half the young Indian children go to schools that are in dilapidated conditions, in cowsheds and in transportation containers, and this is causing a collapse of the foundational education of half the future of the Indian community and there seems to be no sense of urgency to correct this matter on the part of the Government, what do you expect – more patience from us too, less demand than an immediate attention to the problem and adequate allocation of funds to correct the situation so not too many more generations of these children are affected. The net result, over the years, as you can see is the serious criminalization of Indian youth.

Please understand that whatever you see as expressions from Hindraf, we are just reacting according to the seriousness of the situation. Of course the Government will not want you to see that they are doing this to the Indian children. They make us into extremists and our demands to be extreme.

Question 5: How does Hindraf intend to be a functional social activist group or political party when they seem to have alienated both coalitions?

Ganesan: Very good question. Thank you.

Hindraf is not a political party nor does it intend to become one. However we will participate in the political process of the country as a people’s movement.

As a people’s movement we will articulate the needs, interests and rights of people.

In articulating for the people, when we see duplicity and deceit on the part of politicians, we will speak up. You must understand one basic truth about politicians – they are only interested in your votes. They are not necessarily interested in doing what is best for you. As a people’s movement we are not interested in the votes, we are interested in getting for the people what is best for them. There clearly will be times when we do speak up impartially.

Now, think about this, does that make us more or less functional as a social activist group?

Not to alienate one or the other coalition is not our priority, to make sure that the politicians come up with policies in the interest of the people and then they follow through with implementation is our priority. That makes us play our roles more effectively.

Question 6: Having being ignored first by BN and then rejected by PR, what is Hindraf’s next move and what is its political advice or recommendation to its followers and the underclass that it struggles for?

Ganesan: I will be brief on this question.

We will remain ambivalent on this question till it becomes clear who among the two coalitions will support the 5-year Blueprint plans. The political parties are interested in the votes of our followers. We do not see ourselves recommending to our followers to give it to one or the other without there being a quid pro quo as far as their response to our 5-year Blueprint is concerned. It is still too early (now with the Lahad Datu incident) to say that they have rejected our Blueprint. When the jostling gets heavier, we will then be able to more clearly know.

If the response seems too simplistic, take it that I do not want to be read too early on this question.

One thing is for certain – our focus and priority is the “5-year Blueprint to bring the Indian poor into the national mainstream of development”.

N. Ganesan is the Hindraf national advisor.

To read the questions at source, see Soalan-soalan anda (pembaca blog ini) bagi Hindraf ‘.

***   ***   ***

Some of the reader questions which have not been put to Ganesan will be forwarded instead to P. Uthayakumar who was detained 514 days under the ISA for his leadership of Hindraf.

Please leave your questions, if you have any, in the Comment box below for Part 2 of the Hindraf Q & A. Thank you.


The problem with Pakatan people


I have no Faceook or Twitter.

50 thoughts on “Hindraf Q & A

  1. “Let us try this again, for the umpteenth time. Hindraf, PR is not going to sign any rubbish you have written. PR does not want your vote. Just get lost. Vote for whoever you want. Stop begging PR for seats and for signing some rubbish paper. Just get lost.’

    The above is the tone of Pakatan apparanchiks when it comes to Hindraf.

    Midlle class Indians (most of them) have drunk deeply of the kool aid while BN partisans…..I have no idea what BN Indian partisans are deluding themselves with.

    Although I loathe the mandore narrative of Hindraf I am aware that Indians reps within PR are not allowed to play the race game like their Malay and Chinese comrades.

    Just as the MIC betrayed the Indian community, the middle class (Christian) Indians will betray the community by voting for PR, I say this as a middle class Christian Indian.

    Hindraf will always be the unfortunate reminder of the disconnect between the “politics of love” and the reality of race relations in this country. That’s something I suppose.

    1. Conrad, the reality of democracy is that the rule of majority. The Indians has neither the demographis nor the economic power. As such as minorities who have very little leverage. That’s the archilles heel of MIC. That’s why too the Indians of PR will never get anything from PR leadership too.

      Hindraf does not understand this simple issue and behave as though the Indians are the majority or kingmakers in making the demands. That’s why they had limited influence. Their success of 2008 when PR skilfully exploited them kind of deluded Hindraf. They have to understand the reality of politics and come up with strategies accordingly.

      The current Hindraf leadership has neither the intellectual capacity nor the political acumen to realise this.

      1. Being a minority does not automatically make you powerless politically and or economically.

        The Jews are an example of a minority which are powerful ecomonically, politically and have made significant advance in many aspects and areas. look at the parsees of India or even Indonesian Chinese nearer home.


        1. the Jews are economically and politically powerful as long as the white majority allows them to. when the white majority, or for that matter, the majority of the people of countries that host them have had enough of their nonsense, then they will be on the receiving end of what the late Chalmers Johnson dubbed “blowback”.

          on you assertion that the Chinese in Indonesia are powerful, if that was the case, they could have used their “power” to prevent the killings of their people in 1998, but they didn’t. they were a powerful commercial force, no doubt, but only a small number of them hold the economic power you speak of.

          on the significant advances that you mentioned, yes that’s true but as with any ethnicity, a minority holds sway over the majority. if you look at the Chinese in Malaysia for instance, the economic power that they possess, is concentrated among the Anglophile clique whereas the vast majority of Malaysian Chinese are trapped in middle income status.

          1. International Jew, interesting take you have with your statement that “the economic power that they possess, is concentrated among the Anglophile clique whereas the vast majority of Malaysian Chinese are trapped in middle income status.”

            But I would disagree since if you look at tycoons like the late Lim Go Tong, Vincent Tan, Ting Pek Khiing, they are mostly chinese-educated in psyche, probably use more manderin or Malay than English, and see the english-speaking Chinese as bananas.

            but looking at the big picture, we see similarities in all races Chinese, indian, Malay; a small group of capitalists where the majority of the wealth resides, and a vast majority of working class or middle class.

      2. Yawn!!!! you are so serious without doing anything until HINDRAF came about and now you think you know it all. Calvinsankaran you are warped. go and see this [YouTube].

        1. MiNY,

          From my experience as web admin, a lot of readers tend to be lazy when it comes to following a link out in order to read/watch external material.

          It would be more effective if you disagreed with CS that you write out your rebuttal.

          1. Helen, when you deal with the truth, you don’t need a redressing but one has to make an effort. Other symptoms like how you say laziness is not my problem that is their problem because with truth there is no laziness like how you do it. it is a matter of choice not what is convenient.

            1. Truth needs to be unravelled.

              It needs to be laid bare.

              Even with exposure, it needs to be explained with clarity.

          2. Helen, CS is least of the problem. Just another hot air balloon. Well most are including me. When there is truth, you don’t need some else to educate us on the clarity because truth has no substitution or needs a justification when one is able to see it without a blinked lense for an agenda or an expectation.

            1. If everyone were able to see, then the Jerusubangites like Ngeh-Nga would not be repeating their insults against dark-complexioned people and still have the Dapsters ruling the roost.

          3. Helen, faith activates GOD, fear activates the enemy. Truth activates consciousness and morality with a half way bridge between faith and fear. Once we conquer the fear and faith, truth emerges and there is nothing to defeat the truth. just that we must be ready to take the plunge for the truth.

      3. Calvin, if Hindraf’s purpose is power of any kind than in a democracy notwithstanding the use violence (as historically
        proven) minority groups are at a disadvantage.

        However, minority “rights” within a majoritarian rule in another matter. This is achievable with the right strategy as you allude to.

        It is a little bit of a contradiction to claim that Hindraf is deluded in their perception that Indians are kingmakers (with the political maneuverings of PR during 08’) and claiming they are not.

        While I do think that Indians shifted the vote in a significant way and fuelled the “reformasi” movement in a different potent direction, I think post 08’ what PR through the DAP have done is firm up Indian support through middle class support and consigned the disenfranchised Indians to Orang Asal status .

        The fact that Hindraf was never really an organization as such but relied on various other NGOs (which few realize) made it easier for both BN and PR to dismantle whatever nascent cohesiveness this organization had.

        I disagree with your contention that the current Hindraf leadership lacks political acumen and intellectual capacity to deal with the changing terrain. I would argue that the split with Uthaya and the difference of rhetoric when it comes to the HRP and Hindraf, demonstrates that the latter are willing to play nice with others.

        However I would argue that Hindraf own desire to replace the MIC as a vocal stand in for Indians racial preoccupations within PR is an agenda I can only back in a realpolitik sense but is disappointing since I sincerely believe in a “Malaysian” identity or rather the nebulous concept of it and considering my background, a socialist approach to politics.

        Of course, neither BN or PR believes in this concept so as far as Hindraf is concerned the criticism of “racism” is mendacious but points to the reality of how the disenfranchised Indian community is viewed in mainstream politics.

        1. Conrad, it is always a pleasure to read well argued postings/replies even if these are not something you always agree with. I enjoyed your posts and replies and people like yourself and a few others (along with Helen of course) are the ones who make this blog one of the very few I even bother reading.

          I can’t go in length on how I came to know Uthaya and Hindraf and his previous work with Police Watch. It is sufficient to say that it goes back to late 90s. In my social work I came across Uthaya a number of times. Each time the position that he advocated was in complete opposite to the long term benefit of the community. He took populist and an ultra (I would say racist) positions on these issues.

          There were a few cases where he backed notorious and well known criminals and attacked the police for arresting or killing them. In some cases I had actually knew these criminals and their background.

          The only reason why Uthaya defended these thugs were because they were Indians. Had he took the position that the police need to be more transparent and accountable, I would have agreed. But he did not know the background or details of the cases, just jumped in and defended the criminals blindly and irrationally.

          In fact in one of the GEs, Uthaya and his supporters went house to house distributing gruesome pics of dead thugs and telling the Indians to vote against BN. I was supporting DAP at that time but even then such tactics looked barbaric.

          Then came the issue of Kg Medan. You might recall the incident where several Indians were killed during a racial conflict. I was actually based at our PJ facility during those days, having transferred from Penang. At that time I stayed barely a stone’s throw from Kg Medan (at Bandar Sunway). So I know what had actually happened on the ground and I used to be one of the few who were doing social work at that notorious area.

          So when the incident happened, Uthaya came jumping in from nowhere. He claimed that it was a pre-planned massacre of Indians by the Malays. What actually happened was that it was a clash between neighbours nothing racial.

          But soon it turned racial not because of the Malays but because of the Indian gangsters at that area. But once Indian gangsters came in, this triggered the Malays to retaliate and it turned bloody as the Indian-majority Kg Medan area was surrounded by Malay majority areas.

          I knew what actually happened not just because I was involved in social work and lived nearby but also because I had people who worked for me staying in that place. They couldn’t come to work because of the curfew but they kept me informed via phone.

          In the end, the politicians (Khir and Samy) decided that the safest way to solve this is to move the affected Indians to a different area. They offered free low cost homes to the Indians. However just before the residents accepted the offer Uthaya came in and instigated them to reject the offer. He made them make unrealistic demands and also apology for the racially motivated attack. In the end, only a few took up the offer. So this is why I said Uthaya doesn’t do social work that really helps Indians but more on publicity that populist but irrational and counter productive on the long run.

          Then came the issue of the death of Sujatha a local Indian artist who committed suicide. He linked her to Vel Paari who he accused of murder. And later he accused the OCPD of Brickfields something similar. When he was sued, he claimed he received death threats and skipped to the UK demanding for political asylum.

          He came back to Malaysia just before the Hindraf issue blew up. He seized on it and made himself into a hero even though he was not a founder or key leader.Just because he can speak and a lawyer, he quickly hijacked Hindraf and made it his.

          That’s one of the reasons why Hindraf came apart after the release of the 5 ISA detainees.

          I have actually been to some Hindraf talks and attended PR ceramahs in Penang where he and other Hindraf folks were featured. I have seen VCDs of him speaking. These sound like the Nazis speaking. So full of hate and usage of strong language and an irrational obsession to fight to the end. In Penang there were clashes between Indian gangsters fired up by Hindraf’s speeches and some Malay youths (though it was not publicised in the media). The tension was very high. I was horrified by the fiery talk at Batu Caves on the eve of the rally. I was terrified that it might lead to racial clashes. Many Indian gangsters actually were on drugs and drinks during the rally.

          One of the things I detest most about Uthaya is that he keep citing about being motivated by Gandhi but using ultra violent and hate language as well being highly confrontational.

          1. Calvin, thank you for the kind words.

            Like you, my associations with various social/political movements are best discussed in another more appropriate venue.

            Although I was there at Kg Medan (who knows we may have passed each other and never knew it) and was involved in the periphery, my narrative is somewhat different from yours.

            My experience of the incident colored my views on a whole range of issues but reinforced my belief that the mendacity of UMNO and the “house negro” role of the MIC was something that I would never subscribe to.

            It was also turning point in me abandoning many [organized] activist (Indian) groups.

            However to go into detail would detract from the purpose of this response.

            Although I still disagree with how you have characterized Uthaya and his advocacy of the criminal Indian underclass, I think your narrative should stand on its own without a rebuttal from me.

            I do this for two reasons. The first, your personal anecdote and the tone of it is shared by some others Indian social activist who are not pro BN but who are dog pilled and painted as such whenever they express the same sentiment.

            And the second, I think the cult of personality forming around Uthaya will only increase after the next general elections.

            I hope your response offers a different perspective for those who visit this post long after it is archived.

          2. Johnny, you are nostalgic and talk everything that is irrelevant.

            HINDRAF is not Uthaya, but a movement of people. You should take your personal grievances elsewhere.

            HINDRAF has evolved beyond you. No disrespect to your experience, but it does not add any value besides your personal brooding. I am sure you are fine and so am I.

            We are here not to delve on your frustration but how we can enhance Malaysians. Let’s deal with the real thingy rather than what you can’t do to evolved in your personal trauma.

        2. As for the strategy for minorities, my stance is this. The minority can only be kingmakers only when the majority is split and disunited and the political competition is intense.

          But we also need to understand that there are no Indian majority seats in the country and there is no need for Hindraf to have representation as ADUN/MP but extract concessions from the political parties prior to the GE.

          But from a Malaysian point of view such tactics are bad for the country if all minorities start to play the same game. This will distort the political system and creates inequalities.

          I still think that Hindraf does not have a strong case for special rights for Indians when there are far more bumis and Orang Asli poor in terms of % and absolute numbers.

          The problem with Indians is the shift from plantation to cities created a big gap and social adjustment. The failure of MIC lies in their inability to help the Indian community to make the transition smoothly.

          To be fair MIC is a political party and not a NGO. They had neither the funds or people to provide the necessary training to the displaced Indians to adjust to city / urban life. Indians’ minority position in the government and the lack of leverage (due to the united majority) was a great disadvantage. But from a national perspective, it is hard to make a case when we have the majority having an even lower income than the Indians.

          I do think that a louder and more aggressive voice for Indians helps but one needs to be careful doing that so that we attract the attention without burning bridges or affect race relations.

          1. CS, you say “To be fair MIC is a political party and not a NGO” (I never knew that NGO has more force than a politicial one in Malaysian) you sound like a MIC apologetic.

            Then you say “I still think that Hindraf does not have a strong case for special rights for Indians when there are far more bumis and Orang Asli poor in terms of % and absolute numbers”. Really!!!, please highlight the facts.

            This are your thoughts, fair enough but then you say “I do think that a louder and more aggressive voice for Indians helps but one needs to be careful doing that so that we attract the attention without burning bridges or affect race relations”. This is precisely my point. As I had said earlier, faith activates GOD, fear activates the enemy. Truth activates consciousness and morality with a half way bridge between faith and fear.

            Once we conquer the fear and faith, truth emerges and there is nothing to defeat the truth. Just that we must be ready to take the plunge for the truth if we want to be Malaysians irrespective of the origin or ethnicity.

            I think Helen here is a good example who was driven away from Mkini and many alternative media because she decided to speak the truth. When she spoke so outspokenly in those media where where you, yet because today you think that runs down DAP so you decide to jump into the bandwagon?

            CS, my fellow Malaysians, don’t ridicule anything unless you are a part of the truth without how it can only serve you. We Malaysians Mah!!! with the semua boleh attitude.

          2. Okay, I think we should make distinctions between political strategies, minority rights and so called universal rights.

            The problem here and your response is indicative of this, is that Hindraf itself has muddied the waters about these distinctions with its rhetoric.

            The whole idea of Indian being “kingmakers” is part of a political strategy to induce either coalition to conform to its demands.

            Unfortunately, this is the only option available when it comes to minorities in this country. A disunited majority is exactly why political ideologies should be based on interest other than racial ones, which would make the idea of racial kingmakers obsolete.

            However as I argued in my earlier response, the system is not set up this way and neither coalition is making any attempts to change it.

            My question is what exactly is your “Malaysian” point of view when you concede that “special rights” concerning majoritarian racial interests supersede that of minority interest due to demographic numbers?

            This in itself is a racial perspective aligned to a specific racial group you are not a member of.

            To say nothing of the fact that UMNO who has championed the “Malay” majoritarian “special” rights and yet still the vast (Malay) majority live in a state of disenfranchisement.

            However the reality is that what Hindraf is championing is not really a case of “special rights” but rather affirmative action based [more or less] on the racial quotas that has always been part of the UMNO/BN fabric but which has been manipulated to further specific majoritarian racial agendas.

            If there are more Malay poor than Indian poor then it is up to UMNO to champion their cause much as it is for the MCA to champion the cause of the Chinese community.

            In other words Hindraf is actually making an argument for the racial formula of BN (much to the chagrin of PR who claim to want to change the dynamic) and replace the MIC as the voice of the Indian (disenfranchised) in whatever coalition comes into power.

            Calvin, your arguments about the MIC are intellectually and morally untenable. The MIC positioned itself as a political and social entity. Throughout the years they dismissed any who claimed to speak for the Indian community as charlatans and traitors.

            They HAD the funds. Funds enough to start dodgy trusts, educational facilities and the numerous other money making schemes (for the MIC) to the detriment of the Indian community.

            I am old enough to remember the ceramahs of that demented crook Samy Vellu who reminded the Indians that they were lucky enough to be living on the plantations.

            The discourse was NEVER that there were more Malay poor that is why the Indians suffered. It was always about the MIC failing to carry out the racial expectations of the Indian community because they were far more interested in picking up the scraps from the UMNO table.

            Samy Vellu post 08 claimed in his famous Mkini interview that the MIC was not paid any attention to in cabinet meetings…..a different narrative when he was flying high and claiming that he had the ear of Mahathir.

            The reality is that unlike the MCA who had to deal with a completely different set of problems what with the Chinese community being an economic powerhouse and the bank rollers to UMNO, the MIC had problems that they could have solved within a generation maybe even less.

            You keep forgetting that there was a strong middle class Indian presence and civil service base to work with and if only they had taken the trouble to actually carry out their obligations, they would not be in the position they are in today.

            So if all the Indians have is an impotent MIC has does this serve the cause of national unity within the racial formula you seem to advocating?

            Burning bridges is one thing but the point has always been and will always be, if Hindraf can build new ones. AI’s recent statement that PR will include “Indian” issues in its manifesto indicates that by screaming loudly and not assuming, for lack of a better word, the mandore stance, Hindraf seems quite capable of getting its message across.

          3. Reply to Conrad #19:

            Good argument and such argument leads to further good debate and enlightenment.

            My view is the Malaysian via. I think the best solution without having endless debates and unnecessary racial pressure groups championing or rather demanding their “rights” (Perkasa, Hindraf, Suqui, etc) is that we need to expand the scope of the NEP to all poor irrespective of racial grouping. That’s the best and more sustainable solution. Otherwise when the majority is divided we will have the minorities extracting unjust and unfair concessions.

            We need to understand that Perkasa is strong because UMNO is or rather was weak. Suqui dare to make demands because they saw BN was weak and needed the Chinese votes. The same is happening with Hindraf.

            While it is true that there are more bumi poor than non bumis, that doesnt mean the NEP was ineffective. It was and I have seen it with my own eyes. That the bumis have progressed by leaps and bounds is a testament to this. However there are still many who are still poor especially in the East coast, Sabah and Sarawak. A more updated and finetuned NEP will solve this issue once and for all.

            I disagree that Hindraf is asking for affirmative action rather than special rights. For me affirmative action is non racial but special rights are race specific. If you read correctly, what they asking is not just for poor Indians but for the whole society. Some of these demands are so idiotic that I am not sure what they were on when they came up with it.

            The problem is that Hindraf’s demand not just race based but makes no allowance for the position of Indians in Malaysia or how all these tied into a national perspective. It seems like Hindraf doesn’t care for the nation as long as their narrow racial demands are met.

            They don’t talk about or realise or even care how all these will impact the race relations in the country.

            There were leaders who even called for an armed insurgency to seize by force what ” rightfully belong to Indians”. In fact one of the leaders belong to the Anak Bangsa party and occupy a very senior position. He shocked a lot of people when he openly floated this idea in an Indian forum in 2008 that was open for public. This joker who is an advisor to the Tamil Tigers firmly believes in the Sri Lankan Tamil’s way.

            So I don’t think you can compare HRP’s demands to what is being advocated by UMNO or even PR since they do acknowledge the bigger Malaysian context.

            I also disagree about Samy and MIC. I am not trying to defend them and they never appealed to me as they seemed to be catering for plantation workers and civil servants than middle class and professional Indians. However I have seen them close during my student days and when I was involved in social services to understand their perspective. I do have some relatives who are minor leaders.

            However I am from Tamil school and I have listened to his talks over TV and radio and I must say he’s a very good speaker (in fact regarded as one of the best Tamil speaker in the world).

            MIC was very much plantation based but they were never ever rich or flushed with funds. They did start some investment schemes for Indians ala ASB. They also started cooperatives and scholarships (Uthaya and many Indian professionals today are benefitted from this though they would not admit to it).

            However there was a seismic shift in the 80s when the plantations gave way to developments and rubber to palm oil. This started a massive displacement of Indians to urban and semi urban areas. Many people have adapted but some (estimated 25% based on some research) failed to adjust and ended up on the margins of the Malaysian society. They lost their jobs, had no homes and the social support mechanism they has in the estates.

            MIC failed to address the problem early enough and by the time they did, they did not have enough funds or skills. Remember MIC is plantation based and not a NGO so this hampered their efforts. I think Samy did not push hard enough to get governmental aid or might not have the vision to foresee the problem. It is easy to make the criticism in hindsight.

            But in my view, the biggest culprit are the Indian middle and upper class. The Indian society has a huge gap in income. But not many of them even bothered to help. This is a total contrast to the Chinese. Many Chinese contributed to MCA and the Chinese schools despite being supporters of DAP.

            I have seen how MIC failed to get rich Indians to contribute. Some of these rich folks were funded by MIC to do their studies but refuse to pay up their scholarships. Many Indian rich will simply refuse to help whether via MIC or other NGOs. I think this is the crucial difference. It is easy and convenient to blame MIC but the facts do not support it. As I said it I am no fan of MIC but they are not the sole contributor of the problem of Indian poor.

            I am not a fan of Samy too but I have seen him work very hard for the community. He has been discredited after 2008 but I think it is unfair to blame him.

            My view of his is mixed. I don’t think as a leader for purely Indian issue, there has not been a better leader. He has worked very hard and done a lot of things. But he’s a leader for a different era and I was glad that he was shown the door so younger leaders can come through. But as the same time I am not blind to ignore his contributions.

          4. Helen: As for AIMST, Samy spent years cajolling and at times threatening MIC leaders into collecting sufficient fund to build it. It was never from MIC’s coffers as they were never rich to begin with. In fact even for AIMST, MIC got the land free and most of the money came from the govt and not funds collected via public donations. Even for the public donations, much of these are garnered via Samy’s influence as the Minister of Works from the construction companies.

  2. Hindraf has been too aggressive for its own good.
    They should be seeking allies first before making enemies out of everyone.

  3. “destruction of places of worship” – I just don’t get it why Indians at my area built so many (about 6) so called “public temples” on government land plots when there is less than 10 indian families populated the area with majority of malays and chinese. I think it is about time to follow the rules and regulations provided by the authorities.

    1. I agree with you on this. The Hindus been simply irresponsible in building places of worship and even Hinduism wouldn’t condone such practices. In fact most of these shrines are not allowed in religion. Such behavior would not even be accepted in India what more in a plural society such as Malaysia.

      Hindraf, instead of taking a more Malaysian and rational approach, demand that the Hindus are allowed to build shrines as they wish. Such attitude breeds irresponsibility and negative behavior. This is kind of things that make me strongly opposed to all things that Hindraf stands for.

  4. “Is the racist dead yet? Just checking…”

    Here is one of the more virulent Dapsters on Waytha’s hunger strike.

    Ain’t the politics of love, grand……

  5. This is the problem with Hindraf. They talk so much but say very little, if anything at all. They are full of steam but without the fire. They talk so loud but make no sense at all. Just look at these replies…are these makes any sense at all?

    They say don’t confuse the issue of Indian poor just because there are Indian billionaires like TF and AK. You can make the same argument for the Malay community. If we look at the bumis of Sabah & Sarawak, they are worse off. They decry the bumi special rights but what they are asking is Indian special rights. Some of their demands are plain ridiculous, silly and irrational and stupid.

    I don’t dispute the issue of Indian poor. I have done my share of social work to help Indian poor long before Uthaya came on board.

    I know Uthaya pretty well and he’s has done zero for the community other than championing the causes of very dubious characters like criminals and others with questionable character with his Police Watch group. Then he jumped on the Hindraf bandwagon which was started by others which he conveniently hijacked when he returned from the UK (where he was living in exile after getting sued for making defamatory statement).

    Uthaya is known for having an irrational personality and a penchant for drama (perhaps a talent for Kollywood). He was never the one who approached an issue in calm and rational manner. For him all issues must be looked from the Indian perspective and not in the context of Malaysian state and society.

    What had been reported in the press about Uthaya is nothing compared to the things he has done and said. I am thankful that he was talking in Tamil because he was making such outrageous accusations against the government and the bumis. He was making claims that Indians being massacred and murdered and raped, etc.

    The fact is the % of Indian poor is only around 25 to 30%. The rest of the community is generally well off. Hence the average income of Indians is higher than the Malays. So from the perspective of the government and economics, the claim for special rights for Indian poor makes no sense. I would agree if all poor people are helped and not just Indians. As an Indian myself, I see no justification for it.

    I am amused that Uthaya keep asking for seats for Hindraf from PR. Why would you do that when it would mean that you need to politically aligned to PR policies and sacrifice yours. Even if Hindraf can get the seat, what can they achieve with such small number of seats? Worse still they want to contest versus MIC which will only kill their fellow Indians politically.

    Hindraf loves to label other Indians as mandores but by standing on PR’s ticket will mean they will be mandores too.

    1. While I agree with that class based resolutions to our current racial miasma is a more civilized response, I think signaling out Hindraf is the wrong move.

      The reality is that the political system in our country is set up that racial preoccupations is the underlying agenda of any who enter politics and hope to succeed. As Nixon discovered or maybe knew very well, the system defines you and not the other way round.

      There are exceptions of course. PSM has been trying its best to redefine the system in a grass roots level but has been hampered by PR that claims to be about changing the system but in reality seems only interested in supplanting the current tenants of Putrajaya manipulating the same system that UMNO/BN set in place or rather the colonial system they perfected.

      The unpleasant reality is that right now here in Malaysia, its every ethnic group for itself and as Hindraf has demonstrated even PR state governments have not shown any interest in a class based resolution system and continues to satisfy the racial preoccupations of the two main dominant ethnic groups which sustains its political drive to Putrajaya.

      In a very detailed interview over at Mkini, Uthaya gave explicit examples of the disparity of treatment when it came to “Indian issues” in PR controlled states.

      None of these were challenged by the PR powers that be and instead their cyber-attack dogs controlled the narrative that Uthaya and Hindraf were “racists” and tarred the Indian community or at least those who did not follow the PR line as traitors or UMN stooges.

      As for Uthaya. I think we should differentiate between Uthaya’s and the HRP’s rhetoric and that of Hindraf. Like you, I have done (and continue to do) work with the disenfranchised of the Indian
      community and have a ground level perspective of the inner workings of Hindraf.

      Although I cannot profess any real familiarity (beyond passing) with Uthaya, I am extremely interested in the persona he cultivates and am very well acquainted with those who know him. I dispute the characterization of him ‘championing the causes of dubious characters” and his police watch group.

      The fact is that most lawyers champion dubious characters and indeed profit from such relationships, which also have links to prominent political personalities.

      The difference with Uthaya is he championed those of the criminal underclass (if at all) and the discrepancies they faced because of their race. I was also around when he championed the cause of Chinese and Malay working class who came to him “as a last resort” (their words) because they could get nowhere with other lawyers.

      I am familiar with the public relations savvy crowd who have since abandoned Hindraf who were pestering him to take high profile cases for political mileage that he adamantly refused.

      As, for his rhetoric. I agree with you his claims have always been on the bizarre side with all his talk of genocide and the like. I would argue that his rhetoric mirrors that of certain UMNO leaders when it comes to race relations in this country.

      The lawsuit which Hindraf initiated against the British government which is a bone headed attempt at a 40 acres and a mule type initiative was typical of the way how Hindraf grabbed the spotlight but were not able to articulate their arguments to any rational degree.

      However, the reason why I asked of the distinction between Hindraf and the HRP is that I know very well that there is a split and one of the reasons is that Uthaya’s rhetoric was doing more harm than good not to mention the rumors of a falling out between the brothers.

      While Waytha has had no problem attempting consensus with other likeminded social/political groups (PSM for instance) and coming up with the blueprint in lieu of the 18 point demands, Uthaya takes the hard line alienating any who profess another viewpoint beyond his myopic vision of and for the disenfranchised of the Indian community.

      As for Hindraf contesting seats and replacing the MIC. I see no problem with killing the MIC politically merely because what has MIC representation done for the disenfranchised of the Indian community?

      However as I said, the very idea of racial politics is disturbing to me but at the end of the day it is the only game in town.

      I do hate the mandore narrative but I think the reason why PR is dead against the idea of Hindraf joining the coalition is that they will fight for the disenfranchised “rights” of the Indian community as how the other component parties fight for the rights of their communities.

      This I suppose is what separates the mandore from the racialist, which apparently Hindraf has no problem copping to.

      1. Conrad, good rebuttal, it is not an operating system but an operating environment with the truth needs to emerge and be centered like the sun for HINDRAF even when it is classified.

  6. Helen,

    Soalan ditujukan kepada HINDRAF. Berhubung isu kemiskinan kaum India dan permohohan HINDRAF agar program khas diadakan untuk mengatasi masalah ini. Apakah justifikasi HINDRAF berhubung perkara ini? Mohon justifikasi disokong oleh data-data dari sumber yang sahih dan data yang paling diharapkan ialah data perbandingan paras kemiskinan semua kaum di Malaysia. Terima kasih.

  7. Helen,

    The dapinisder are a bunch of plagiarists. For some odd reason my virus protection keeps filtering the site, so I cannot link to the specific article.

    However, their so-called “Oracle” within the DAP who held forth on the attitude of the DAP about Indians was actually word for word (most of it) lifted from the Mkini articles of S.Thayaparan Commander (rtd).

    If this is the best MCA can come up with in its propaganda war against the DAP, they deserve to lose. The irony is that if they just published his articles it would have had more of an impact but by doing this they just feed into the perception that only BN(MCA) resort to lies and misinformation.

    The hilarious part is that a friend discovered this fraud when she was searching for a specific article by the retired commander and used key words that brought her to the “dapinsider interview”.

    1. I share your opinion that DAP Insider and (another one or two blogs I won’t mention by name) are part of the MCA propaganda operations.

      In fact, I feel quite geram as to why MCA is not using The Star as a platform for what DAP Insider is tasked to do but then again, you can probably figure out why the MCA is not interfering in the commercial running of their cash cow.

      FYI, I’ve noticed that DAP Insider plagiarized not just the Commander’s but my writing as well, re: from my response in our Comments section that I made (to you actually) about the PSM’s Saras in Jelapang.

      As I’ve explained before, I take an interest in her because when I was arrested in Perak, none of the DAP people were around. It was the PSM people who waited for us till late evening to be released from the markas FRU, and Saras was at the gate to give me a hug even tho’ before that we had never met before and she wouldn’t have know me from Eve, see

      Some passages in DAP Insider‘s write-up on Indians were taken word for word from what I wrote and I had the impression that what you wrote in the comments were lifted as well.

      It was this development that prompted me to put on record, Reformating my blog, over to you.

      As I’ve explained earlier, since I do have political objectives in mind (as the end result to my efforts here), I’m willing to overlook the fact that the BN political operatives copypaste chunks and chunks of my work without any attribution, which has been going on for some time already.

      However I was compelled to bring up the matter when my commenters (such as you) are being plagiarized too.

      What might interest you also is that I’m extensively quoted by the Umno network in blogosphere, which shouldn’t surprise anyone. After all, I occupy a unique niche in being among the 15% Chinese refusing to vote the oppo in GE13, who dislikes the Worshipful LGE and and furthermore writing in Malay.

      So even my BM postings are plagiarized!

      I gather that it’s a temporary alliance wherein they reckon ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’.

      Contrary to the accusations by the Dapsters that MCA or Umno is my political master, in truth it works the other way around. I have certain strong views that I desire those politicians who have any clout and may be interested in the matter, to decisively act on.

      Hence when the political operatives pick up my writings (which represent my thoughts), then they become the intermediaries to getting my ideas percolated upstairs to the Umno policymakers, hopefully.

      I’ve given up on the MCA taking any effective action. Like you say, they deserve to lose.

      Postscript: “political masters” directing me on what to write about

  8. Helen,

    You are exemplary.

    This is the only blog I think worth commenting on and it would seem my instincts about the way you do things around here are true.

    Thanks for the taking the time and effort to present your arguments (some of which I do not agree with) in a rational and humorous manner and for allowing dissenting opinions on your blog.

  9. Reply to Calvinsankaran # 21

    I think the problem is not pressure groups demanding their rights. PERKASA, HINDRAF, SUQUI are different entities but all are demanding their “rights” as guaranteed by the Constitution or their interpretation of it.

    You still have not addressed the contradiction of having a “Malaysian view” and your fidelity to a specific racial group. In addition, it is difficult to see where you are coming from when you claim that minorities are demanding “unfair” and “unjust” concessions. Unfair and unjust in what context?

    PERKASA is not strong because UMNO is weak. PERKASA is strong because UMNO allows it to be a pressure group and not UMNO youth. Suqui dares to make demands because it is riding on the sentiment of the Chinese vote which has shifted from the MCA to the DAP because the MCA failed in its obligation or so the Chinese community thinks.

    Again with the contradictions. Either the NEP was a success or it is not. If the Malays have indeed improved by leaps and bounds then why is it the NEP is mocked by Mahathir himself either as crutches that needs to be done away with or as a special right that is threatened by the alternative front.

    The scope of the NEP is beyond the scope of this reply. We could end up discussing a bloated civil service. Rent seeking culture etc.

    I do not think we should talk of the Bumis in Sabah and Sarawak as if they ever enjoyed the NEP as their Malay compatriots. This too widens the scope of the discussion into the Oran Asli act and the problems they face as Bumiputras and their sidelining from mainstream development. All of which does not paint a very good picture of UMNO/BN.

    You may think there is a difference between special rights and affirmative action but the reality is that special Malay rights are defined by affirmative action policies. Hindraf is merely wishes to extend the affirmative action policy to disenfranchised Indians.

    The criticism Hindraf often faces is the “what were they on” variety but really if you look at the blue print it is pretty specific. From your reply, I have no idea if you are talking about the 18-point demand or the blueprint. Now some maybe put off at the level of real politick in the demand – participation in GLCs etc. – but Hindraf is merely putting in details of how Indian participation should be injected within mainstream government institutions without the cover of political correctness.

    I disagree that Hindraf does not care for the nation. As you concede, MIC did not exactly do a bang up job. The NEP needs to be refined. What Hindraf is doing is including extremely vocally Indian issues which have been ghettoized by the dominant political parties in this country.

    If you support the racial formula of BN then you should support Hindraf by default because the racial formula depends on each political party taking care of the interests of the communities they represent.

    As for your Anak Bangsa/Tamil Tiger detour, let us not go there. Such claims serve no purpose than to detract from the discussion at hand. If you want to name names than by all means go-ahead and then I will have to do my own research and present a coherent counter argument.

    In what way does UMNO and PR acknowledge the bigger picture. I kind of find it funny that you only mentioned UMNO in a sentence about rival coalitions but I digress. BN is based on a racial formula. PR is based on a racial formula.

    What Hindraf is attempting to do as an advocacy group/political party is ensure that the racial demographic they represent are fairly treated. For someone who has taken a strong stand against the DAP and AI, I find it amusing that you concede that like UMNO they have a bigger Malaysian perspective.

    Again with the contradiction Calvin. First you claim that the MIC could not handle the Indian problem because they did not have the funds or political will or even that they were a political group as opposed to a social activist one, now you claim that the party was catering to plantation workers and not professionals and the middle class.

    Calvin most middle class Malaysians have a minor MIC leader in their families. That’s the problem right there.

    You do get the contradiction don’t you? Not catering to the middle class yet having part representation from the middle class.

    Calvin I do not dispute your narrative on the displacement of Indian estate workers, I am puzzled by your contradiction of the supposed plantation based agenda of the MIC and their middle class agenda. You claim that Samy Vellu the great orator (only to Indians I suppose) did not push hard enough for solutions to rectify the plantation displacement based problems of the Indian community but yet fail to see that the MIC was engaging in profiteering for lack of a better word.

    MIC rebels when involved in petty party disputes let the cat out of the bag when they revealed that funds from the government were diverted to interests within the party. UMNO’s fault that is they let this happen and not that they did not give funds for the Indian community.

    You keep claiming that the MIC lacked the funds and skills to handle this problem but yet they had the “funds and skills” to engage in a wide range of money making schemes and held ministerial posts.

    In your response to Helen regarding the AIMST, you claimed that the fund came from the government and not from the public.

    To be pedantic I could argue that government funds do come from the public but here’s the thing, why wasn’t there any initiative to address the problems of the displace plantation workers? Why didn’t MIC begging from UMNO include a detailed plan to solve the problems of marginalized and displace workers.

    Please do not go on about lack of skills. The MIC had many well-known personalities who wrote excellent papers on the problems of the Indian working class. There has been decade’s worth of research carried out by MC Indians on the problems of marginalized Indians.

    They were purposely ignored so that the plutocracy of MIC Indians could further their agenda at the expense of the average disenfranchised Indian.

    You claim that you are not blind to Samy’s contribution but what can you offer beyond a few measly scholarships and blaming the Indian middle class (part of which was created by the machinations of the MIC to bolsters its power base and lord it over the Indian disenfranchised) to show that the MIC had a positive impact on the Indian community ?

    While I agree with you that the Indian/Christian middle class share some responsibility over the current state of the Indian community and in no way did they attempt some semblance of cohesiveness like the Chinese community did with the MCA (using the DAP as a counter balance) you have not demonstrated how MIC representation in BN has done anything other than advance the agendas of certain individuals in stark contrast to the MCA and even UMNO.

  10. Postscript to my reply.

    Thanks for the discussion Calvin. The last word should be yours since I did throw out a few questions.

    It has been interesting and I hope beneficial to readers of this thread.


    Arise! Arise! Arise!
    My fellow country men and women
    Unite! Unite! Unite!
    All ye Malays, Bumiputras, Chinese, Indians and all
    All ye Muslims and non-Muslims
    To sweep these murderous intruders in jungle green or
    Tuxedos armed with AK 47s or paper arrows
    From our beloved shores !
    We must repay in kind !
    Were they the victims of unbridled greed for power
    Or a quirk of historical fate ?
    Let no barnacles grow in our hearts !
    Let our compassion flow in a flood !
    Let loose our heart strings !
    Let our tears flow freely
    From our hearts and minds
    In their honour
    Arise! Arise! Arise!
    My fellow country men and women
    All ye Malays, Bumiputras, Chinese, Indians and all
    All ye Muslims and non-Muslims
    Unite! Unite! Unite!
    For our fallen heroes
    We all salute you !

      1. Just saw this. Vanakkam at the beginning means, “Greetings, and at teh end usually means, “I am done”. Mine is a standard Schwarzenegger response ;)

  12. Hindraf was formed to prevent demolishment of hindu temples.

    What’s Hindraf say on the hindu temples built illegally?

  13. If I may suggest a more positive move towards you achieving your collective goals, but, not goals for individuals. It seems that only Indian knows problems of the Indian.

    Although plenty of Indian professionals try to ignore this, but, the fact remains, MIC had done and aquired a lot for the Indians as a whole. Why not contribute more to these efforts.

    By now MIC and HINDRAF must have realised, pride and caste’s mentallity only good for the IWK plant. Hindraf is far down to deliver, and MIC has the ‘door to improve’ for the Indian. … And that of course, if you are talking about the poor Indian community interest at heart.

    1. Moya, you say “Although plenty of Indian professionals try to ignore this, but, the fact remains, MIC had done and acquired a lot for the Indians as a whole. Why not contribute more to these efforts”. I think MIC has done nothing in this aspect if you look at the blatant disregard that the Malaysian indians (minus those self serving ones) had faced being subservient.

      If not we would not have HINDRAF to rise and create the tsunami in GE12. Whether you are a MIC apologetic or not is not my concern.

      We need to move ahead with being concerned for what had transpired in the past with the concern for the rest.This needs guts and courage from every segment of Malaysians to acknowledge the truth and reality. It does not need to be politics but the ability to recognize the fault and find remediable situation as Malaysians irrespective of our origin as Malaysians as a nation.

  14. Helen pendapat saya:

    1. Kalau Hindraf anggap diri mereka sebagai warga negara Malaysia, kenapa ahli2 selalu cakap bahasa Tamil. Cakaplah bahasa Malaysia supaya pendapat anda dapat disampaikan dengan meluas. Sekarang ini Hindraf macam pertubohan pengganas, macam Tamil Elam pulak. Sekarang mcm rasa alien pulak.

    2. Wayta tak boleh fikir masalah kaum India boleh selesai dalam masa 8 bulan.

    3. Lebih baik bekerja dari dalam berbanding dari luar.

    4. Hindraf sepatutnya bekerjasama dengan MIC dan PPP utk menyelesaikankan masalah kaum India dan bukan bekerja bersendirian.

Comments are closed.